Evidence Hub

Epidemiology and outcomes of aspiration pneumonia in White American patients hospitalized with nasopharyngeal cancer: A nationwide analysis

Moh'd Masoudi, Malik Samardali, Ibrahim Shanti, James J. Kim

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2025

13,850 participants

Abstract

e18104

Background:

Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) is commonly linked to dysphagia, which can result from tumor invasion or treatment-related side effects, such as radiation therapy. Dysphagia significantly elevates the risk of aspiration pneumonia (AP), a prevalent complication in this population. Despite the known association between AP and NPC, its epidemiology and clinical impact among White American patients with NPC remain understudied. This study aims to quantify the burden of AP in NPC-related hospitalizations and evaluate its effect on inpatient outcomes, addressing a key gap in the oncological and infectious disease literature.

Methods:

White American patients hospitalized with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) in 2019 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of aspiration pneumonia (AP). The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality, multiple secondary outcomes utilization, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization costs were also evaluated. Multivariate regression models were employed to examine disparities between the groups, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05.

Results:

Among 13,850 White American patients hospitalized with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 2,274 (16.4%) were diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia (AP). Patients with AP were significantly older, with a mean age of 67.2 years compared to 65.1 years in those without…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 13,850 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free